Netflix Snags Space Force Trademarks Ahead of US Military (cnet.com) 75
Space Force, the branch of the US armed services established by the Trump administration last December, now shares a name with a Netflix comedy starring Steve Carrell. From a report: The military reportedly isn't too concerned about possible confusion over the fictional show's name. Netflix, however, has reportedly secured trademark rights in Europe, Australia, Mexico and elsewhere for Space Force. Currently, the Air Force only owns a pending application for registration of the name Space Force in the US based on intent to use, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Records obtained by the publication showed that Netflix was submitting applications for the name "Space Force" internationally back in January 2019.
Eminent domain? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can we just take it from netflix?
In the USA? Sure, it sounds like that wasn't even an issue. In Australia? Not likely. I seem to recall a number of movies and TV shows named after real branches of the military before and there not being any kind of confusion. There are certainly depictions of real and imagined members of the military, as well as groups of such all the way up to the entirety of all US military services, in movies and such. There seems to be a number of ways to resolve issues of branding when it comes to adverting and
Re: (Score:3)
Does it even matter if e.g. USAF is not registered as foreign trademarks?
Re: (Score:3)
Does it even matter if e.g. USAF is not registered as foreign trademarks?
Likely not a big deal but friendly nations might want to play nice with the USAF iconography. I can imagine that such protections over the use of USAF names and symbols would have some kinds of protections in nations like Australia, just to get some kind of reciprocity in the USA. Imagine how Australia might feel if there's people in the USA misusing the names, badges, and such of the Australian military? They would not like it so much. If Australia is to have any leverage in getting the US federal gove
Re: Eminent domain? (Score:2)
I'm not sure why anyone would give a fuck. The military doesn't typically care about making money from merchandise. There are laws against representing yourself as a member of the military but last I checked anyone can print off a military logo and slap it on whatever they want.
Re: Eminent domain? (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.defense.gov/Resour... [defense.gov]
https://www.defense.gov/Resour... [defense.gov]
Re: Eminent domain? (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Thanks. In that case they just get ripped off a lot and do nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not without fair compensation.
Hmm, how much is an armed force worth? The air force budget is around 165 billion, so by the times-revenue method lets take 3 years revenue .. that is around $500 billion...
Re: Eminent domain? (Score:3)
Eminent domain only applies to property. A trademark is much more vulnerable to loss. Bayer lost its trademarks to Aspirin and Heroin because people didnt know the difference between the name and the product. Kleenex is getting pretty close to losing theirs. When your so successful people think your product name describes all products that serve the purpose, you are at risk of losing the trademark.
Space Force can easily be argued as a logical leap from Air Force and thus nothing unique to trademark. Besides
Re: (Score:2)
Eminent domain only applies to property.
And a trademark is intellectual property. We have to make this distinction between real and intellectual property because some concepts of real property cannot apply to something like a trademark. I'd think that the idea of eminent domain does translate to intellectual property well. The application is not quite the same, and since I am not a lawyer I have no idea if there's a different name for this when applied to intellectual property, but the idea comes across.
When people say someone "stole" a tradem
Re: Eminent domain? (Score:2)
They cant use eminent domain. Intellectual property does not magically become property just because it has the word property in it. In fact we already have a real unconstitutional issue with Asset Forfeiture whereby a county sherif or any other law enforcement can take your property for their own gain even before you have been found guilty in a court of law. There was a vendor that always made large cash deposits because he ran a bunch of Snack vending machines. Bank flagged his deposits as suspicious and
Re: (Score:2)
When people say someone "stole" a trademark, patent, or other unique creative work, no real theft was involved.
I hold US and international trademarks. The trademark office obliges you to defend it or forfeit it.
It takes time and money to set up these legal instruments, so theft of creative work and the market it is intended to define is involved if someone uses your trademark without permission.
As for the military or other branches of government the trademark netflix has probably allows them to use it for a while, but it's not going to stop the government claiming the name, or voiding the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can we just take it from netflix?"
Alas, no, it will be realSpaceForce.mil
Re: (Score:2)
The following are available:
superduperspaceforce.gov
thebestspaceforceever.dod
georgefloydlovesthespaceforce.gov
mexicopaidforthisspacefence.mil
makespacegreatagain.trump
lawandorderspaceforce.gov
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that the .mil registrars will allow Netflix or any other entity not part of the US military to register a .mil address.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard it being applied to *trademarks*, but it certainly has been applied to other forms of intellectual property, such as patents.
The idea of expropriating a trademark is kind of weird, because trademarks are a form of commercial identity. I'd think it's more likely that "Space Force" as a trademark would be invalid, because it's a generic term.
trump just needs an judge to go his way (Score:2)
trump just needs an judge to go his way
Re:Space Farce (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole branch of the military is basically a sand box where Trump pretends to understand rockets while everyone claps at him with strained looks on their faces.
Or, the US Space Force a branch off the US Air Force like the US Marine Corps is a branch off from the US Navy. USMC officers are trained at the US navy academy, and future US Space Force officers will be trained at the US air force academy. The USMC was created because there were enough people within the navy with a unique enough mission to call for creating a different kind of training and organizational structure. The USMC isn't quite an army, and it isn't quite a navy. One joke is that "marines" is an acronym for, "My ass(ets) ride in navy equipment, sir!" Another joke I've heard is that when some Marines do something right then the Navy likes to take credit, when they do something wrong then the Navy disowns them.
This "sand box" for the Space Force is a recognition that operations in space are large enough, and different enough, from the missions of any other part of the military that it deserves to be separated more cleanly from other USAF operations. I believe that because the Space Force is under the umbrella of the Air Force like the Marine Corps is under the umbrella of the Navy that it should have been called "Space Corps". But, whatever, Space Force is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
We're arguably at (or nearing) an inflection point in space travel... away from the point when it was primarily about "getting things off the ground and into orbit & beyond", and more about "supplying and protecting far-flung outposts away from Earth".
I've heard really good arguments that USSF rightfully should have been under the Navy, not the Air Force, because as we cross the inflection point, USSF's primary mission will, in fact, overlap primarily with the expertise of the Navy.
I suppose part of th
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard really good arguments that USSF rightfully should have been under the Navy, not the Air Force, because as we cross the inflection point, USSF's primary mission will, in fact, overlap primarily with the expertise of the Navy.
That is only true in Sci-Fi where authors have some weird fascination with equating space to the ocean. The mission of the Space Force has nothing in common with the Navy beyond very high level over simplified analogies. Space is not directly comparable to any traditional theater.
USAF is the weakest of the branches in terms of its ability to handle and supply remote outposts.
Not true. The USAF has either the best or the second best depending on what you value more, speed or total tonnage shipped. They have an entire MAJCOM dedicated to the task called Air Mobility Command.
What do you mean "snagged"? (Score:1)
Netflix did not snag anything.
They use the trademark for their documentary about the US space force. I have not watched it in full as of yet but isn't it impressive to see how far ahead the US? Their satellites follow a fool proof design, so even a monkey can repair them and the Chinese are trying to copy them already!
Readying my IPO (Score:1)
I'm sure my business strategy around the FBI(TM), CIA(TM), DNC(TM), the Army(TM) and Navy(TM) will do fantastic. Anyone wanting a xerox of the business plan, let me know.
Re: Readying my IPO (Score:2)
Your mission statement better be:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it in active use? A trademark isn't a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it in active use? A trademark isn't a patent.
It's seems pretty obvious that a Netflix show about the US Space Force couldn't have happened before the US Space Force itself. Even them planning to call it that is prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. No. This is all just wrong.
First, of course a netflix show about the US Space Force can exist before Space Force itself or are you going to argue that the
United States Colonial Marines, and the
United States Marine Corps Air-Space Cavalry
must also both be real because they've already been depicted on screen?
Second, "Prior art" is concept specific to copyright and isn't even relevant for a trademark.
Third, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. It's not like the US military is going to be blocked fro
Re: (Score:3)
No such thing as prior art in trademarks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not called 'prior art', but you can't have a valid trademark over something already in 'active use' by another.
Given Netflix' product is a spoof of the US military concept, it seems blatantly obvious that it was in active use prior to filing the trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true. You can't have a trademark that is in commercial use for the same type of product as another. For instance, look up the registration of Air Force One. You will find a movie, golf bags, sports drinks, and a bunch of other items, all owned by different companies.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.trademark.af.mil/L... [af.mil]
Re: (Score:3)
"Prior art" has nothing to do with it.
However I do think this falls under the different catagories of products exception. It is not going to be possible for a person of average intelligence to confuse the two products. In particular the DOD agency will be called "The Space Force" while the TV show does not have a "The" in the title.
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, you mean Old Navy isn't really the military?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
QuadEddie displayed his ignorance thusly:
Nothingburger of a story. In the US, there's very obvious prior art
<facepalm>
Once again, for the Godzillionth time: trademarks and patents are very different things.
Patents are limited in term, trademarks are forever - or, at least, until your lawyers stop sending cease-and-desist notices to infringers. Patents can be invalidated if it's established that prior art (i.e. substantially the same invention was adequately described and published prior to the patent application under consideration) exists, trademarks can be granted
What does it matter? (Score:2)
Any value Netflix gets from the trademarks would be the same as the US military gets from it. If the military's trademark holds weight, then Netflix will have to change the name of the show in the US. If the military's trademark doesn't hold weight, then the Netflix trademarks likely wont either. In summary: this post seems to be trying to make the military look bad for not getting the trademark outside the US but really it just makes Netflix look bad for not security the trademark before giving the show th
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are reading the dates wrong. It seems netflix applied internationally for the trademark in January 2019, while the show premiered in May 2020. I assume they applied in the US at the same date. So they applied for the trademark about 18 month before the show premiered. That seems an appropriate timeline to me.
I guess they could have waited for the trademark to be official before premiering the show.
Re: (Score:1)
You're right except the story was written by someone who doesn't understand how trademarks work. Netflix's registration is in a completely different area than the military. Normally a SIC code difference with identical trademark names is fine. Netflix is an entertainment company while the military would file under a different group. So there's no overlap or problem with both trademark's coinciding.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at Netflix's trademark, it isn't just registered for the show. It's registered for a ton of promotional material as well (t-shirts, oven mits, gun holsters, books about military tactics, etc) It goes on and on. The Air Force trademark is not nearly as broad, but it definitely has significant overlap.
However, I think Netflix would have a hard time in most of the areas of conflict. Even though the Air Force mark is a young one, I suspect they'd win on trademark dilution grounds.
And? (Score:1)
How can this possibly matter? Space Force are a branch of the military- they're not engaged in trade at all. Even if you assume they use the name Space Force as a brand to sell army surplus stuff, they still wouldn't be doing so in competition with Netflix. How could a trademark conflict between the two ever arise?
Re: And? (Score:1)
It's just silly click bait, although seeing a few rods slam into a large civilian building from orbit could be interesting, it ain't gun a happen.
There isn't even a burger in this nothingburger.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.trademark.af.mil/L... [af.mil]
Not confused (Score:5, Funny)
The military reportedly isn't too concerned about possible confusion over the fictional show's name.
One's a farce, the other's a show on Netflix. :-)
Fun show. (Score:3)
Not like the office.
Funny.
Quirky.
Has some serious undertones in addition to the interesting premise.
I like it quite a bit.
Re:Fun show. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Stick with it, after the 'war games' episode (which was a bit lame), it picks up.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you, Fuck Tony, you had one job!
Re: (Score:2)
It was okay for a short first season. Most shows you have to stick with before they get really good.
For All Mankind was a bit like that too.
Season 2 looks almost certain given how well it did on Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
I also am enjoying it. Good cast of characters. They pretty much nailed the politicians from the young AOC doppelganger to the southern, septagenerian, flat-earther. Funny because it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix or Trump's vanity project?
You can have a Space Force (Score:2)
Once we travel outside the influence of our Sun's gravity, let alone outside of Earth's gravity. Traveling 0.003 AU to the moon is impressive but it's not space, well technically we're already in space even if we're hiding in an underground bunker.
Re: You can have a Space Force (Score:1)
Infinitely improbable!
Re: (Score:2)
I can barely survive Machu Picchu, And I think I wouldn't last more 30 seconds at the peak of Mt Everest. With or without my towel.
Re: You can have a Space Force (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have NASA to perform civilian operations in space? Or does the existence of NASA upset you too? Should we dissolve NASA and have those functions handed off to the FAA? Or maybe to the Coast Guard? I mean NASA is a government space agency. Have they done anything outside of the influence of the sun's gravity? Maybe a probe or three.
We define "space" as about 100 kilometers over our heads. If we are going to have so many military satellites that high up, and have plans to do more up there in the
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have NASA to perform civilian operations in space? Or does the existence of NASA upset you too?
Telescopes do point beyond our solar system, so if anyone asks, tell them I'll allow it.
Should we dissolve NASA and have those functions handed off to the FAA?
We might have to hand that off to the FAA if we need to regulate lot of civilian traffic in high altitude or ballistic orbit. Or change NASA's current role, because they're not set up to do that either.
Can we have NASA to perform civilian operations in space? Or does the existence of NASA upset you too?
We define "space" as about 100 kilometers over our heads. If we are going to have so many military satellites that high up,
Agreed. Please remember we'll change that definition when we get into actual space. What we have right now is more of a Orbit Force or Orbit Police.. An organization that reaches out to under 35,000 km. and perhaps more ty
Stealth (Score:1)
they can sell it for 1 million dollars! (Score:1)
Space Force lost its nerve (Score:1)
Oh! It's a COMEDY! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it would be good, it had a good cast.
It had some moments that were good, but overall:
wasn't funny . . . wasn't exciting . . . wasn't suspenseful . . . wasn't anything worth watching . . .
Yep.
Trademarks aren't universal (Score:2)
It's fine to have duplicato trademarks owned by different entities in different industries. That's what "trade" means. It only covers your trade: either VOD services, or DOD services in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not different industries, things that could unlikely be confused across industries. Kind of like Nissan Computers cannot be confused with Nissan Automobiles.
On the other hand Space Force, an arm of the military dedicated to establishing space operations, and Space Force a show about a government's military dedicated to establishing space operations are overlaping and confusing and would not both be trademarkable.
Why do people insist on looking up the dictionary definition of something to interpret leg
Re: Trademarks aren't universal (Score:2)
Nothing you wrote contradicts what I said. But if you feel the need to comment, that's fine.
If you think people will confuse a TV show for a military organization, may I direct you to NCIS.
They could always switch to space marines (Score:2)
They could always switch to space marines, have chain swords, blasters and frag grenades.
Next Year It Will Go Back To Its Old Name (Score:3)
Space Command. "Space Force" is the U.S. Space Command rebranded. Next year it will return to its old name. Space Command sounds commanding, Space Force sounds like a cartoon. No one in the military requested this name change.
Re: (Score:2)
Space Force sounds like a cartoon. No one in the military requested this name change.
The military aren't bigly thinkers and don't have the biggest minds, oh so big folks.
Mind you on a technicality Trump is the commander in chief of the US military so yes they did request the name change ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they decided what they are going to call people working for them yet? Last I heard they were asking for suggestions.
https://www.af.mil/News/Articl... [af.mil]
The obvious "Spaceman" (like Airman in the Air Force) gets mocked a bit on the show. As does the name Space Force. I kind of wonder if people had the same reaction when they first heard Air Force.
Sparc64 and UltraSparc (Score:2)
Out of blue, this suddenly reminded me how Fujitsu snatched the SPARC64 trademark from under the nose of Sun Microsystems in 1990s. The SPARC processor architecture was being developed by Sun Microsystems and licensing was available to other companies. Out of blue, Sun's partner Fujitsu registered SPARC64 as its trademark just in time when Sun was getting ready to announce its own processor based on 64-bit SPARC architecture. Allegedly Sun went mad about it, but couldn't do anything. Eventually, they intro